[BasketofPuppies]

Apple's software strategy in the last several years has been to use it to sell Macs. Commercial software acquired from other companies have seen their Windows and Unix versions discontinued, forcing their users to get Macs. Internally-created software has little or no direct or viable competition and is also Mac-only, again forcing those who need to use them to buy Macs.

The exceptions to this are iTunes and QuickTime, both available for Mac and Windows. iTunes for Windows doesn't sell Macs--at least not nearly as many as Apple hoped it would--but it does sell iPods, iPod accessories, Apple TVs, AirPorts and iTunes Store downloads. QuickTime needs a Windows version because if it were Mac-only, media creators wouldn't use the format because it would severely limit their potential viewers.

And now there's Safari for Windows.

This is free, standards-based software, so it isn't going to bring in money for Apple. Is Apple hoping that Windows users will like Safari so much that the next time they buy a computer it will be a Mac? It hasn't worked for iTunes and the iPod, so I doubt that Safari, which has little to differentiate itself from its competitors, will do it.

Because I can't think of another reason why Safari for Windows exists.

[besson3c]

iPhone development? AJAX does have some browser specific quirks.

[lpkmckenna]

Daring Fireball says: money. Apple gets advertising kick-backs from Google. Apparently, there's big money to be made there.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

I think its a way for Apple to "force" IE or IE + FF only websites to support Safari. Safari can now be tested for such sites without having a Mac lying around.

[Big Mac]

Daring Fireball has an interesting take on Safari for Windows:

But the primary reason is simply money. Safari is a free download, but it’s already one of Apple’s most profitable software products.

It’s not widely publicized, but those integrated search bars in web browser toolbars are revenue generators. When you do a Google search from Safari’s toolbar, Google pays Apple a portion of the ad revenue from the resulting page. (Ever notice the “client=safari” string in the URL query?)

The same goes for Mozilla (and, I presume, just about every other mainstream browser.) According to this report by Ryan Naraine, for example, the Mozilla Foundation earned over $50 million in search engine ad revenue in 2005, mostly from Google.

My somewhat-informed understanding is that Apple is currently generating about $2 million per month from Safari’s Google integration. That’s $25 million per year. If Safari for Windows is even moderately successful, it’s easy to see how that might grow to $100 million per year or more.

There’ve been many attempts to finance app development with advertising; what’s interesting about web browser search engine deals is that browser developers earn money – a lot of it – for ads that users were going to see anyway, just by performing the same search without the built-in integration.

[CatOne]

It's an easy way for developers to test to see how their pages render on Safari 3.0. You know, the same version of Safari that's going to be on the iPhone, say.

;-)

[zro]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Daring Fireball says: money. Apple gets advertising kick-backs from Google. Apparently, there's big money to be made there.

Bingo.

Where do you think Mozilla gets money to fund the meteoric development of Firefox?